Belgium Drones - Brussels Airport Shutdown

[UAV Hive]

I took the HLN video (I couldn't find the original, so took one off X but that changed it to 30fps so it will have introduced a tiny timing change) and I took the NieuwsbladOnline which we can tell is the police helicopter and is 25fps.

I then stabilised them for an easy visual check, the strobes are in sync close enough to be the same aircraft. The helicopter flashes red, then a moment later white and this same sequence occurs in the HLN video.

This strengthens the idea that the video of both is the helicopter.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I took the HLN video (I couldn't find the original, so took one off X but that changed it to 30fps so it will have introduced a tiny timing change) and I took the NieuwsbladOnline which we can tell is the police helicopter and is 25fps.

I then stabilised them for an easy visual check, the strobes are in sync close enough to be the same aircraft. The helicopter flashes red, then a moment later white and this same sequence occurs in the HLN video.

This strengthens the idea that the video of both is the helicopter.

At a glance, those look very similar even with framerate mismatches.

The original (edited by the outlet) video in the HLN article is attached below. It also happens to be 25fps. The copy of this video re-hosted by nu.nl is much lower quality and, for whatever reason, is 60fps. Of course, we don't know what the original file was. HLN edited this to add the side bars and the big watermark in the middle.

 

[flarkey]

At a glance, those look very similar even with framerate mismatches.

The original (edited by the outlet) video in the HLN article is attached below. It also happens to be 25fps. The copy of this video re-hosted by nu.nl is much lower quality and, for whatever reason, is 60fps. Of course, we don't know what the original file was. HLN edited this to add the side bars and the big watermark in the middle.

the copy of the video was a just screen recording made by me (couldn't work out how to download from the HLN website!). But this explains why I had to run Sitrec at 2.5x speed to get a matching flyby of the helicopter sync'd with the video.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...naws.com/15857/BrusselsG16/20251106_083253.js

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I've tried to coerce some path smoothing algorithms out of claude and I think one thing it came up with is an improvement, but not great. There's inherent noise in the MLAT based track. However for the Nieuwsblad video there is a path for this helicopter that matches up pretty well even in the original MLAT track from ADSBx without any smoothing applied.

The top row of windows on the SW side of the office building looks like about 36m above ground.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...ls_g16_smoothed_track_only/20251106_073050.js

The HLN video is harder to match up with this flight of G16. The video shows the aircraft moving to the left and then moving to the right.

I noticed @flarkey noted the initial airport closure was around 18:40 UTC but I was looking at later flights as well. The source referred to in the HLN article says there were two incidents with a drone. And... going back on ADSBx, there was indeed two flight of G16 on MLAT.

So there were two periods of airspace closure. And both coincide with periods where the military helicopter G16 was flying close to airport traffic and over the airport itself.

18:40 BEL2UE aborts landing and airport closes:

20:36 TAY1804 aborts landing and airport closes:

Here is a timeline (UTC) of those two events and their complete alignment with times that G16 was flying close to the head of runway 19:

18:33 ROT374W takes off
18:33 BCS225P lands
18:37 LZB407 takes off
18:37 TVS6SH takes off
18:40 MAC116 takes off
LZB407 lands runway 19
G16 ~2.45 mile lateral <100ft vertical from BEL2UE approaching runway 19
BEL8AJ following close behind BEL2UE in queue probably sees G16 flying near approach path at around the same altitude
18:41 BEL2UE aborts landing, begins to climb after passing G16
18:43 BEL8AJ does flyover of runway 19 at ~4kft
18:44 BEL4WF does flyover of runway 19 at ~4kft
18:47 VLG89TX does flyover of runway 19 at ~4kft
G16 flies directly across the path VLG89TX would have been on if it tried to land.
18:51 G16 gets too low and MLAT indicates it as on the ground, but it keeps moving around
MLAT lat/lon positions are probably is very very inaccurate during this 3 minute period
18:54 G16 track stops moving on ground
19:00 SAS69X flyover at 7kft
19:23 AAB28D (small cessna jet) flyover at ~7500ft
---- airport resumes
20:09 BEL8RD takes off
20:10 MAC112 takes off
20:12 RAM831F takes off
20:13 BEL2LG takes off
20:19 BOX396 lands
20:28 BEL2PB takes off
20:33 SXS3KB takes off
20:36 TAY1804 does flyover on landing runway, at 3000ft
---- TAY1804 aborted landing
20:33:10 TAY1804 is descending
20:34:30 TAY1804 at 2275ft GPS
20:34:40 TAY1804 at 2000ft GPS
20:34:50 TAY1804 at 1975ft GPS
20:35:00 TAY1804 at 2150ft GPS, position 50.987°, 4.531°
20:35:10 TAY1804 at 2425ft GPS, position 50.982°, 4.529°
20:35:20 TAY1804 at 2950ft GPS, position 50.975°, 4.527°
20:35:30 TAY1804 at 3275ft GPS, position 50.968°, 4.524°
20:35:40 TAY1804 at 3325ft GPS, position 50.961°, 4.522°
20:35:50 TAY1804 at 3175ft GPS, position 50.948°, 4.519°
20:36:00 TAY1804 at 3100ft GPS, position 50.940°, 4.517°
20:36:10 TAY1804 at 3125ft GPS, position 50.935°, 4.515°
20:36:20 TAY1804 at 3275ft GPS, position 50.920°, 4.512°
20:36:30 TAY1804 at 3375ft GPS, position 50.915°, 4.511°, flies over runway 19
G16 MLAT track appears, at 225ft. Directly next to the head of runway 19 that TAY1804 was targeting. G16 have been airborne for some time prior but not tracked in the MLAT data.
---- Closure. G16 flies around.
21:03 G16 helicopter lands
22:08 LZB408 takes off

 

[jarlrmai]

I think the pattern to establish is the airport closing AFTER G16's flybys and thus G16 being the cause of the shutdown and not a helicopter sent to investigate the actual cause and then being filmed by people and sent to media.

From my perspective your timeline indicates normal operations, UNTIL the appearance of G16 nearby the runways and while G16 is already airborne and then the flight operations are suspended.

One thing to add to your timeline might be the initial take off or start of tracking data location and time of G16 and how many plane landings/take offs there were during that time.

 

[jarlrmai]

The data indicates G16 is a Federal Police Helicopter

https://www.jetphotos.com/airline/Belgium - Federal Police

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Police_(Belgium)

The Belgian Federal Police (Dutch: Federale Politie;[2]​ French: Police Fédérale;[3]​ German: Föderale Polizei[4]​) is the national police force of the Kingdom of Belgium. It carries out specialized and supra-local administrative and judicial police operations, and supports local police services when needed. Additionally, the Federal Police is responsible for patrolling and ensuring the safety of the country's highways.[5]​ The Federal Police has approximately 12,300 officers and civilian personnel.[6]​

The Directorate of air support offers specialized support to the police such as event management (traffic jams, plane crashes, crowds, sporting events, etc.). The group's five helicopters and two planes also search for missing people, suspects, clandestine laboratories, etc. The protection of VIPs and the transport of funds is also part of the mission. Some of their activities were documents in the series 101 Unité Aérienne.

A lot of the on the ground images of Federal Police Helicopters are at Brussels airport indicating they probably operate out of there to some degree.

 

[mvdb22]

Yes the MD900 helicopter with registration G-16 which did two flights that evening is operated by the Belgium Federal Police. Based by the flightpath it is very likely during both flights it was searching for drones. The helicopter is based at the military part of Brussels Airport. The area blurred on Google maps . Belgium media confirmed a police helicopter was used to search for drones.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I think the pattern to establish is the airport closing AFTER G16's flybys and thus G16 being the cause of the shutdown and not a helicopter sent to investigate the actual cause and then being filmed by people and sent to media.

From my perspective your timeline indicates normal operations, UNTIL the appearance of G16 nearby the runways and while G16 is already airborne and then the flight operations are suspended.

One thing to add to your timeline might be the initial take off location and time of G16 and how many plane landings/take offs there were during that time.

Both airport closures began with a plane on approach to runway 19 flying close to helicopter G16.

When G16 was not near the runway, the airport was still operating. On its first flight in the timeline above G16 is flying around and airplanes are departing and arriving, and only when G16 comes back and gets close to the head of runway 19 does the next plane in the approach queue abort its landing and the whole airport closes.

Then the airport is closed. G16 flies around for a bit then lands. The airport reopens briefly and airplanes arrive and depart. Then as soon as G16 takes off again next to runway 19 on the second flight, the very next airplane coming in aborts its landing and the airport closes again.

I do not think G16 was investigating the drones that caused the shutdown. I think the timeline indicates that it directly caused the shutdowns. G16 flew near traffic approaching runway 19 twice. In the first instance it had been airborne for a while prior. And in both of those instances, the next airplane approaching aborted its landing and the airport closed.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah it doesn't make sense if the airport was operating until G16 appears that drones were reported and THEN the helicopter was sent to look for them.

The airport was operating UNTIL G16 was nearby.

You can see the easy spin from "G16 caused this" to, "G16 was looking for the drones" however the timelines don't seem to add up for that.

 

[flarkey]

I think the pattern to establish is the airport closing AFTER G16's flybys and thus G16 being the cause of the shutdown and not a helicopter sent to investigate the actual cause and then being filmed by people and sent to media.

From my perspective your timeline indicates normal operations, UNTIL the appearance of G16 nearby the runways and while G16 is already airborne and then the flight operations are suspended.

One thing to add to your timeline might be the initial take off or start of tracking data location and time of G16 and how many plane landings/take offs there were during that time.

@Kyle Ferriter - said...

8:33 ROT374W takes off
18:33 BCS225P lands
18:37 LZB407 takes off
18:37 TVS6SH takes off
18:40 MAC116 takes off
LZB407 lands runway 19
G16 ~2.45 mile lateral <100ft vertical from BEL2UE approaching runway 19
BEL8AJ following close behind BEL2UE in queue probably sees G16 flying near approach path at around the same altitude
18:41 BEL2UE aborts landing, begins to climb after passing G16
18:43 BEL8AJ does flyover of runway 19 at ~4kft
18:44 BEL4WF does flyover of runway 19 at ~4kft
18:47 VLG89TX does flyover of runway 19 at ~4kft

The other thing to look into is what overflights were there just before the shutdown? for example this Veuling A320 flew directly overhead the airport before its missed apprach and go around just after the shutdown - could that have been the cause of a drone misidentification? (Flying through the overhead isnt unusual in itself. It is normal procedure sometimes because often the safest part of the sky can be directly above where other aircraft are at their lowest, ie on the ground).

, its normal procedure

 

[jarlrmai]

G16 initially appears on tracking at 17:11z flies towards Aarschot, vanishes from tracking at 17:17z, reappears at 18:12z at Hechtel-Eskel (40 miles/65km away) flies back towards the airport (home base) performs some loops in the flight corridor area over the N21 road then heads over the airport at 18:46z

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

The other thing to look into is what overflights were there just before the shutdown? for example this Veuling A320 flew directly overhead the airport before its missed apprach and go around just after the shutdown - could that have been the cause of a drone misidentification? (Flying through the overhead isnt unusual in itself. It is normal procedure sometimes because often the safest part of the sky can be directly above where other aircraft are at thier lowest, ie on the ground).

View attachment 85607
, its normal procedure

Right now without looking too much more into it at the moment, I would guess all of the low (3000-4000ft) flyovers of runway 19 by BEL2UE, BEL8AJ, BEL4WF, VLG89TX were not planned, and they had intended to land but were told by ATC to abort and fly that path and then divert to another airport. Making an abrupt evasive turn could be more dangerous than just proceeding at a height like that. G16 was much lower so they flew a couple thousand feet over it.

Edit: The higher pass by VLG89TX might have just been part of the planned approach path. But I see what you're saying it could be involved. That would be surprising though.

 

[JMartJr]

Edit: The higher pass by VLG89TX might have just been part of the planned approach path. But I see what you're saying it could be involved. That would be surprising though.

But in an atmosphere of people worrying about and looking for drones over airports, planes flying over airports seem likely "culprits" in triggering drone reports. They are in the right place -- over the airport -- and we have more than ample evidence that some number of people these days are seeing planes but interpreting them as drones.

 

[jarlrmai]

It seems the flap initiating sighting is often "unexpected to normal people" traffic.

In Copenhagen, a light aircraft with a fairly distinctive engine noise directly over the runways.
Here in Brussels, a 'futuristic looking' black police helicopter near the runway, which even seems to have interfered with landing operations.

Perhaps it's the combination of drone fear and then "at the airport but not a jet airliner" that is the more common trigger point than simply people not id'ing planes, that stuff comes later once the flap is started.

 

[JMartJr]

It seems the flap initiating sighting is often "unexpected to normal people" traffic.

In Copenhagen, a light aircraft with a fairly distinctive engine noise directly over the runways.
Here in Brussels, a 'futuristic looking' black police helicopter near the runway, which even seems to have interfered with landing operations.

Perhaps it's the combination of drone fear and then "at the airport but not a jet airliner" that is the more common trigger point than simply people not id'ing planes, that stuff comes later once the flap is started.

Good point. And as we saw in the NJ drone case (and the Creepy Clown flap, and the great UFO flaps of the past) and are now seeing at European airports, flaps, once initiated, tend to spread. Once "the ball is rolling," there need not be anything particularly unusual to initiate a new batch of sightings -- once enough people are aware of stories of mysterious UFOs in the area, or clowns, or mysterious unidentified drones, they interpret what they see through that lens.

So it is not just a case of "people can't identify planes" as this drone flap rolls along, it's more "people are anxious about drones, are paying more attention to what's in the sky, and interpret what they see there through the lens of expecting mystery drones. This leads them to misidentify planes as drones, when in more normal times they would either interpret them as planes or not notice them at all."

 

[jarlrmai]

I found some night video of G16


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTVsVv-y65Q


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISTzxdveAhQ


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZbZLsX3nz8

 

[mvdb22]

The location of the anti-collision lights and the navigation lights of the police helicopter are documented here https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/20...copter-for-a-large-drone-at-brussels-airport/

 

[jarlrmai]

The location of the anti-collision lights and the navigation lights of the police helicopter are documented here https://feitoffake.wordpress.com/20...copter-for-a-large-drone-at-brussels-airport/

You forgot to correct your camera location image.

 

[mvdb22]

Tonight again drone reports around Brussels airport. Again newspaper HLN has a video. https://www.hln.be/steenokkerzeel/o...ek-getuigen-zien-er-ook-in-zaventem~a580dbfc/

Two Police MD-900 helicopters were active. Our friend G-16 but also G-12. G-12 landed again after what seems a search mission at the military base at 19:08 UTC. My guess the video of HLN shows the landing of G-12. The strong light at the front, below the cockpit is the landinglight or searchlight

 

[UAV Hive]

Looks like a heli with a flashlight, smells like a heli with a flashlight...

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Yeah it doesn't make sense if the airport was operating until G16 appears that drones were reported and THEN the helicopter was sent to look for them.

The airport was operating UNTIL G16 was nearby.

You can see the easy spin from "G16 caused this" to, "G16 was looking for the drones" however the timelines don't seem to add up for that.

I am trying to think about whether this is a likely high level timeline:
- drone violates airport airspace
- airport halts arrivals/departures
- G16 helicopter is sent by police to try to find/chase the drone which caused the shutdown
- these flights of G16 on ADSBx are police investigating the drone sighting, and are what was filmed in the videos at the airport published by HLN and Nieuwsblad

I lean towards no. In particular, the 20:36 flight by G16 appears on an MLAT track (could have actually taken off earlier) less than 2 minutes after the next incoming airplane aborted its landing procedure and started to climb back up to fly over. That would be an incredible response time for the military base to get a helicopter into the air to investigate a drone almost immediately after the airport shut down.

Below is a revised timeline for Nov 4 with a couple fixes and some more detail. I really don't think either of the MLAT tracks of G16 are flights by the police investigating a drone. It's also notable that so far there's nothing to indicate that the alleged incursions by one or more drones over a long period of time on Nov 4 were corroborated by sensor data. It could have just been visual reports again.

17:11:30 G16 takes off
Flies to Hechtel-Eksel. MLAT track is spotty and drops out for most of the trip to Hechtel-Eksel. Picks back up again at some point on the return journey at 18:12.
18:11:40 G16 MLAT track pops back up in Hechtel-Eksel on the ground near a military training range. The MLAT coordinates provided by ADSBx show it in a field at (51.132 N, 5.362 E). Which is in a residential area just outside the base area. Possible the helicopter actually had landed within the base and the MLAT coordinates are slightly inaccurate. G16 flies directly back to BRU.
18:33 ROT374W takes off
18:33 BCS225P lands
18:37 TVS6SH takes off
18:38:30 G16 is approximately ~3 miles lateral and ~100-200ft below from LZB407
18:39 LZB407 lands
BEL93B flies over the airport at ~8000 ft in the approach loop from the SW, looping CCW to land from north.
18:40 MAC116 takes off
BEL2UE following closely behing LZB407 in landing queue
At 18:39:50 G16 MLAT track is ~2 miles lateral ~300ft vertical from BEL2UE
At 18:40:30 G16 MLAT track is ~2.3 miles lateral <100ft vertical from BEL2UE
BEL8AJ following close behind BEL2UE in queue probably sees G16 circling near approach path
18:41 BEL2UE aborts landing, begins to climb after passing G16
18:43 BEL8AJ does flyover at ~4000 ft
18:44 BEL4WF does flyover at ~4000 ft
18:47 VLG89TX does flyover at ~4000 ft
G16 flies directly across the path VLG89TX would have been on if it tried to land.
18:51 G16 gets too low and MLAT indicates it as on the ground, but it keeps moving around
MLAT lat/lon positions are probably is very very inaccurate during this 3 minute period
18:54 G16 track stops moving on ground
19:00 SAS69X flyover at ~7000 ft
19:23 AAB28D (small cessna jet) flyover at ~7500ft
---- airport resumes
20:09 BEL8RD takes off
20:10 MAC112 takes off
20:12 RAM831F takes off
20:13 BEL2LG takes off
20:19 BOX396 lands
20:28 BEL2PB takes off
20:33 SXS3KB takes off
---- TAY1804 aborted landing
20:33:10 TAY1804 is descending
20:34:30 TAY1804 at 2275ft GPS
20:34:40 TAY1804 at 2000ft GPS
20:34:50 TAY1804 at 1975ft GPS
20:35:00 TAY1804 at 2150ft GPS, position 50.987 N, 4.531 E
20:35:10 TAY1804 at 2425ft GPS, position 50.982 N, 4.529 E
20:35:20 TAY1804 at 2950ft GPS, position 50.975 N, 4.527 E
20:35:30 TAY1804 at 3275ft GPS, position 50.968 N, 4.524 E
20:35:40 TAY1804 at 3325ft GPS, position 50.961 N, 4.522 E
20:35:50 TAY1804 at 3175ft GPS, position 50.948 N, 4.519 E
20:36:00 TAY1804 at 3100ft GPS, position 50.940 N, 4.517 E
20:36:10 TAY1804 at 3125ft GPS, position 50.935 N, 4.515 E
20:36:20 TAY1804 at 3275ft GPS, position 50.920 N, 4.512 E
20:36:30 TAY1804 at 3375ft GPS, position 50.915 N, 4.511 E
G16 MLAT track appears, at 225ft. Directly next to the head of the runway TAY1804 was going to land at. May have been airborn for some time prior but not tracked in the MLAT data.
---- closure. G16 flies around train yard and military barracks within 2 miles of the airport.
21:03 G16 helicopter returns and lands. Total flight time according to MLAT track: 27 minutes.
---- airport reopens again
22:08 LZB408 takes off

Both shutdowns last about 90 minutes and their starts coincide with the closest points G16 had with an airliner on final approach to runway 19. According to the MLAT track, G16 was within 0.4 miles of TAY1804, and within 2 miles of BEL2UE. Both of those planes G16 got closest to aborted their landing and this marks the start of each shutdown, since arrivals/departures cease for ~90 minutes afterwards.

Neither flight by G16 looks much like a helicopter investigating or chasing a drone. The 17:11Z flight is long out-and back to the base in Hechtel-Eksel. 4 planes are on nearby on-schedule descents into runway 19, but when BEL2UE gets close to G16, it aborts its landing, climbs back up, does a flyover of runway 19, and the next 3 planes in the queue do the same. The airport shuts down for ~90 minutes. G16 hovers around where it was intending to land, and lands 13 minutes later. It was not chasing any drones on this flight. (Speculation: One or more pilots of planes in this landing queue saw a small aircraft flying very low and very near their flight path into runway 19. They radio ATC and report this danger to flight. ATC tells all 4 of these planes to abort landing procedures, climb, and proceed for a flyover of the airport. Incoming planes farther away are diverted with more notice and do not do this 3-4k ft flyover.)

The ~20:36Z flight takes off as a plane is on track to land. Flight TAY1804 was on track for landing as of 20:34 but aborts their landing at approximately 20:35, climbs back up to around 3000ft, continues ahead for a runway flyover, and flies over G16 at 20:36:30. G16 is now hovering a could hundred feet off the ground, 600 meters (0.37 miles) from the head of runway 19, according to the MLAT track. The airport then shuts down for ~90 minutes. G16 flies around the west side of the terminals and is filmed by an airport employee. It then flies off and loiters over a big train yard and industrial area, and then flies north and does loops over a military barracks, and then returns to the military tarmac at BRU and lands. The farthest it gets from the airport is less than 2 miles. It would have been easily visible from the airport the entire time. Total flight time is 27 minutes, of the 90 minute shut down. The MD900 can fly for much longer than 27 minutes, so if it was investigating drones why did it land so soon? (Speculation: The pilot of TAY1804 was aware of the shutdown and the description of the cause, they are coming in to land and see the exact same thing. A small aircraft is hovering very low, very close to the flight path into runway 19. They radio ATC to report it and ATC tells them to abort, climb, fly over.)

The Nieuwsblad video matches a path by G16 at around 20:40, which is 4-6 minutes after G16 lifted off and the airport shut down. So it was plausibly filmed by an airport employee who went to look out one of these windows (by the pin) a few minutes after the second shutdown began.

Because I don't see a very close match for G16 paths for the Nov 4 HLN video filmed over the terminals, my current working theory on it is that it shows a police helicopter which was not on ADS-B or MLAT, and it was filmed during one of the shutdowns. Not filmed of the aircraft which initiated the shutdown. We know police did send up a helicopter to chase down what they thought was a drone.
This CNN article quotes an official saying they had a helicopter chase what was believed to be a drone, but it lost the drone. (https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/02/europe/drones-spotted-belgian-airbase-spying-intl-latam).

"A drone jammer was used, but without success … A helicopter and police vehicles chased the drone, but lost it after several kilometers," he said.

And neither flight by G16 on ADSBx suggests it was involved in doing that. MLAT is sourced from Mode-S packets which, different from ADS-B, is a response to an active interrogation signal from ATC or another aircraft, it is not an automatic periodic broadcast. Since this is during an airport shutdown there may be no Mode-S from the police aircraft either because they turned it off, or because there are no Mode-S interrogations to be replied to. This is filmed by an employee in/near the old ATC tower connected to the terminals, and they send it to the HLN news outlet.

 

[ThomasH]

I had a little fun with this one from Belgium:
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...mazonaws.com/17922/Kemzeke/20251108_072133.js

He/she still don't think the simulation looks anything like the video. "It WAS a drone and it was 50 m up, I have an IQ of 200 and speak 7 languages"

I guessed the place and time, and when I later got the original video, I was only 4 seconds wrong in the timing

 

[ThomasH]

I had a little fun with this one from Belgium:
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...mazonaws.com/17922/Kemzeke/20251108_072133.js

He/she still don't think the simulation looks anything like the video. "It WAS a drone and it was 50 m up, I have an IQ of 200 and speak 7 languages"

I guessed the place and time, and when I later got the original video, I was only 4 seconds wrong in the timing

...I would have posted the X link, but I think he/she blocked me.

 

[flarkey]

...I would have posted the X link, but I think he/she blocked me.

They've deleted their account.

 

[ThomasH]

They've deleted their account.

Wow. Maybe it was a joke?

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Wow. Maybe it was a joke?

I don't think so. Just another person caught up in online UFO community disinformation, who maybe realized their mistake.

I genuinely think governments in US and Europe are unaware of the extent to which UFO delusions have reached into their populations and are leading to significant issues when it comes to reports of anomalous airspace activity. Like there are so many surprisingly popular online UFO influencers who have been pumping out so much content that will be influencing more people into misinterpreting lights in the sky as being drones or as basically magical/religious UFOs.

For context, this is the thread, right @ThomasH ?

Source: https://x.com/kyle_ferriter/status/1986997573324873872

 

[Mick West]

I don't think so. Just another person caught up in online UFO community disinformation, who maybe realized their mistake.

I genuinely think governments in US and Europe are unaware of the extent to which UFO delusions have reached into their populations and are leading to significant issues when it comes to reports of anomalous airspace activity. Like there are so many surprisingly popular online UFO influencers who have been pumping out so much content that will be influencing more people into misinterpreting lights in the sky as being drones or as basically magical/religious UFOs.

For context, this is the thread, right @ThomasH ?

Source: https://x.com/kyle_ferriter/status/1986997573324873872

Interesting. I just had an email exchange with a person in Belgium who was convinced they had seen a drone, but had seen a plane of the same type.

They were very convinced, saying:

- we noticed the object once it passed over our house, since it was flying low, slow and had bright lights. It was 18h22 then.
- I instantly got up for my camera since from the first time I saw it, it looked like a drone. Because of how the lights flashed.
- From 18h22 to when I took my picture at 18h33, It was hovering still. My camera is a 600mm f4 and I needed to change lenses.
- I then needed to adapt settings to very high ISO
- A little sportplane like we see them all the time would not have spent ten minutes in my line of sight since they usually fly low here, for their landing approach.

As someone who spent his life looking at planes, and commercially flying drones, I never doubted for one second that it was a drone.

He did have a big camera with a long lens, and sent me the raw images.

After I found the plane, and we verified the time (the camera clock was a bit off)

my mind is blown. You can use the imagery as much as you want.
...
A big thank you for spending time on this, and apparently schooling me

This particular type of plane (a Diamond DA40) seems particularly suited to being misidentified as a drone. It's small and slow, and likely used for flight training. Both flights had meandering loops and u-turns.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Interesting. I just had an email exchange with a person in Belgium who was convinced they had seen a drone, but had seen a plane of the same type.

They were very convinced, saying:

- we noticed the object once it passed over our house, since it was flying low, slow and had bright lights. It was 18h22 then.
- I instantly got up for my camera since from the first time I saw it, it looked like a drone. Because of how the lights flashed.
- From 18h22 to when I took my picture at 18h33, It was hovering still. My camera is a 600mm f4 and I needed to change lenses.
- I then needed to adapt settings to very high ISO
- A little sportplane like we see them all the time would not have spent ten minutes in my line of sight since they usually fly low here, for their landing approach.

As someone who spent his life looking at planes, and commercially flying drones, I never doubted for one second that it was a drone.

He did have a big camera with a long lens, and sent me the raw images.

After I found the plane, and we verified the time (the camera clock was a bit off)

my mind is blown. You can use the imagery as much as you want.
...
A big thank you for spending time on this, and apparently schooling me

This particular type of plane (a Diamond DA40) seems particularly suited to being misidentified as a drone. It's small and slow, and likely used for flight training. Both flights had meandering loops and u-turns.

It's small enough it doesn't look like or sound like a jet airliner, but also is so much smaller it looks/sounds somewhat different from the more common small cessna/piper/etc prop plane.

 

[ThomasH]

I don't think so. Just another person caught up in online UFO community disinformation, who maybe realized their mistake.

I genuinely think governments in US and Europe are unaware of the extent to which UFO delusions have reached into their populations and are leading to significant issues when it comes to reports of anomalous airspace activity. Like there are so many surprisingly popular online UFO influencers who have been pumping out so much content that will be influencing more people into misinterpreting lights in the sky as being drones or as basically magical/religious UFOs.

For context, this is the thread, right @ThomasH ?

Source: https://x.com/kyle_ferriter/status/1986997573324873872

I'm now a member of the Danish UFO Investigation Group. It was founded back in 1959, and these days they take a very skeptical approach to sightings, which is where I come in, helping to find the prosaic explanations.

I have access to the reports coming in through their website and social media, along with the raw videos, which is great.
But it's just like the "drone" cases; everything turns out to be planes, Starlinks, stars, or planets.

Each report also includes a description from the witnesses, and sometimes when you read it, you'd think you were looking at the wrong video or text. It's incredible how different people's experiences can be from what the footage actually shows.

Years ago, I found eyewitness reports fascinating, people describing discs hovering over their cars in the '60s and so on. I thought there might be something to it because they seemed genuinely shocked and sincere.
But after seeing all these "drone" cases, I've completely changed my view of what the human brain is capable of. Eyewitness accounts alone just don't carry much weight for me anymore.

 

[flarkey]

The UK and Belgian militaries both seem to think that the drone threat is real.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dn2ep584ko

Britain is providing military support to Belgium after a series of suspected Russian drone incursions on its airspace, the new chief of the defence staff has said.

Sir Richard Knighton told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that his Belgian counterpart asked for assistance earlier this week and that equipment and personnel were on the way.

Belgium's main airport Zavantem was forced to close temporarily on Thursday night after drones were spotted nearby. They were also spotted in other locations, including a military base.

Sir Richard said it was not known for sure if the incursions were by Russia, but added it was "plausible" they had been ordered by Moscow.
In a statement, Defence Secretary John Healey said: "As hybrid threats grow, our strength lies in our alliances and our collective resolve to defend, deter and protect our critical infrastructure and airspace".

Alongside Nato allies, he added that the UK would help Belgium "by providing our kit and capability" which he said was already being deployed. On Friday the German defence ministry said it would support Belgium with anti-drone measures after a request from Brussels.

About 3,000 Brussels Airlines passengers were affected by the disruption, and the carrier said it faced "considerable costs" from cancelling or diverting dozens of flights.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius and the Belgian security services have said they suspect Russia, but Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken has previously admitted there is no accompanying evidence.

"At first, drones flying over our military bases were seen as our problem," Francken said earlier this week.

"Now it has become a serious threat affecting civilian infrastructure across multiple European countries."

No footage or evidence was presented that the drone incursions were real, other than a statment saying is was "Plausibe" that they we Russian.

 

[UAV Hive]

The UK always send ORCUS, which is Leonardo Falcon Shield for incidents like this.

It was deployed at Gatwick and Lakenheath, both times proving there was no drone threat.

For anyone that's interested:


Source: https://youtu.be/ds7MTwqmAic?si=AbceudzdndcmMhoS

 

[FatPhil]

It was deployed at Gatwick and Lakenheath, both times proving there was no drone threat.

The fact that it was deployed at a site does not prove that there have been no drones at that site. It's pretty good evidence that if there were drones at the site they would have been detected and identified as such, but any claim that the public are being told about everything that is being detected by these systems would be an assumption too far for me. I.e. no public information about drone threats does not imply no drone threats.

 

[grizzlyPeak]

I think the pattern to establish is the airport closing AFTER G16's flybys and thus G16 being the cause of the shutdown and not a helicopter sent to investigate the actual cause and then being filmed by people and sent to media.

From my perspective your timeline indicates normal operations, UNTIL the appearance of G16 nearby the runways and while G16 is already airborne and then the flight operations are suspended.

One thing to add to your timeline might be the initial take off or start of tracking data location and time of G16 and how many plane landings/take offs there were during that time.

What if the helicopter was asked to investigate, flies over the runway, sees the drone, and then signals 'close airport'. That would explain the helicopter being there at the time of closure?

 

[UAV Hive]

The fact that it was deployed at a site does not prove that there have been no drones at that site. It's pretty good evidence that if there were drones at the site they would have been detected and identified as such, but any claim that the public are being told about everything that is being detected by these systems would be an assumption too far for me. I.e. no public information about drone threats does not imply no drone threats.

I have done numerous FOIAs and have the internal emails for Gatwick and Leonardo who supply the system went public too. So yes I can say the system brought Gatwick to a close.

Lakenheath I have a partial picture for but the operation can be seen to wrap up quickly once the system was deployed which is the expected pattern for a false drone incident.

This is a bit out of date but records a lot on Gatwick.
https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org/gatwick2018/

I'm fighting the MoD for Lakenheath facts here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_f_1063

 

[jarlrmai]

I have done numerous FOIAs and have the internal emails for Gatwick and Leonardo who supply the system went public too. So yes I can say the system brought Gatwick to a close.

Lakenheath I have a partial picture for but the operation can be seen to wrap up quickly once the system was deployed which is the expected pattern for a false drone incident.

This is a bit out of date but records a lot on Gatwick.
https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org/gatwick2018/

I'm fighting the MoD for Lakenheath facts here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_f_1063

I think the point is the system cannot look back into the past, the drones could really have been there and then stopped being used once the system was put on place, based on what we've seen in recent years there probably was no drones. However we should avoid absolute statements like this when we have no real evidence either way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Facts are very thin on the ground regarding yesterday's drone incursion over the Doel nuclear power station.

From Franceinfo:

Here we go again. Drones were spotted in Belgian skies once more on Sunday, November 9. Three devices were seen above the Doel nuclear power plant in the north of the country shortly before 10 pm Fortunately, there was no impact on the site's operations, assured Engie, the operator. "The relevant departments are continuing to monitor the situation ," stated spokesperson Hellen Smeets.

[translated from French]

No indication of whether the "devices" were seen together or separately, or who saw them and from where.

This is not intended to be proof of anything, but it's interesting to note that placing a camera just across the water from the power station in Sitrec we do get a nice cluster of "drones" hovering directly over the power station from about 9.30 to 9.40 local time. Two close together, then a third moving in shortly afterwards.

(The low-res terrain model shows the power station as a "hill" here)

Video at 10x real speed...

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/5177/Doel power station/20251110_183024.js

 

[UAV Hive]

I think the point is the system cannot look back into the past, the drones could really have been there and then stopped being used once the system was put on place, based on what we've seen in recent years there probably was no drones. However we should avoid absolute statements like this when we have no real evidence either way.

To be fair I have not said an absolute as I specified the systems were deployed which does give the context they were not in situ at the start. So I am being accused there of something I have not done.

I went on to clarify the systems brought the incidents to a close which is true.

I should add I spoke to a journalist in Belgium over the last few days, who has now done a story detailing parallels with New Jersey, I also told him about the great work people do here on Metabunk:
https://archive.is/MNcqo

 

[jarlrmai]

We know, you said "proving there was no drone threat", we don't know if there was a drone threat or not before the system was deployed though.

The system being deployed on Tuesday and seeing no drones does not mean there was not a drone threat on Monday.

 

[UAV Hive]

We know, you said "proving there was no drone threat", we don't know if there was a drone threat or not before the system was deployed though.

The system being deployed on Tuesday and seeing no drones does not mean there was not a drone threat on Monday.

"It was deployed at Gatwick and Lakenheath, both times proving there was no drone threat."

It's a sentence, it was deployed being the start, maybe there's a lost in translation but that does not imply retrospective behaviour. But in future I will elaborate more.

But it is important that it proved sightings were false, as for example at Gatwick sightings at the airport were recorded while the system was there, so it proved mistakes were being made which is significant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Another Belgian sighting last night, this time with a photo:

https://www.hln.be/heusden-zolder/twee-drones-gespot-boven-heusden-zolder~a79ebb38/

Translated to English:

Two drones spotted above Heusden-Zolder

Two drones were spotted in the Limburg municipality of Heusden-Zolder on Tuesday evening, causing concern among residents. The Heusden-Zolder police district confirmed that their teams responded to several reports.

Natalie Denayer
November 11, 2025, 7:36 PMLast update: November 12, 2025, 3:35 PM

"Two drones were sighted between Heusden and Beringen," says the chief of police of the Heusden-Zolder police zone. "Our teams were on site and saw them. The drones then flew off in the direction of Paal, not the Kleine -Brogel military base . We were ultimately unable to identify anyone who was flying them."

"Mischief or gambling?"

According to the police chief, it's very difficult to track drone operators. "These devices fly incredibly high and often in the dark. That makes it hard to keep track of them."
For now, the police assume it's not a military or other special flight. "We can't determine whether it's malicious or a hoax," they added. The police are continuing to monitor the situation, but currently see no cause for concern.

Again this looks very much like a plane.

A quick look at flight activity over this area shows that three planes followed a very similar flight path over this area last night, which matches the description.

This TUI flight passed over at 6.55pm local time:

About 50 minutes later (which would give the police time to show up), these two Brussels flights flew one after the other on the same track:

The track looks to be about right as viewed from Heusden-Zolder if the photo was taken as the plane was flying away to the west. I've had a go at finding the building in the photo but no luck as yet. Here's a Google Earth view from a random spot in the town. The angle looks a decent match.